Lil Durk’s legal team is asking a federal judge to separate newly added murder allegations from his upcoming trial or dismiss the charges entirely.
Attorneys Drew Findling, Marissa Goldberg, Brian Steel and Christy O’Connor filed the request after prosecutors significantly expanded the case through a third superseding indictment.
A hearing on the motion is scheduled for July 27. The decision could determine whether Durk’s case moves forward as planned or is divided into separate proceedings.
Lil Durk’s Lawyers Challenge Expanded Indictment
The original case centers on an August 2022 shooting outside a gas station near Beverly Hills that killed Saviay’a “Lul Pab” Robinson.
Federal prosecutors allege Durk arranged for gunmen to travel from Chicago to Los Angeles to target rapper Quando Rondo. The shooting allegedly stemmed from tensions connected to the 2020 killing of Durk’s close friend and collaborator King Von.
Durk has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.
The initial case focused primarily on the California shooting and was reportedly built over nearly two years. His trial is currently scheduled to begin on August 20.
Prosecutors broadened the case in June by adding allegations of racketeering murder and conspiracy to stalk. The revised indictment reportedly claims Durk operated a wider criminal enterprise across California, Illinois and Georgia.
The filing also includes accusations involving drug trafficking, robbery, theft and witness tampering.
Defense Raises Speedy Trial Concerns
Durk’s attorneys argue the late additions leave the defense without enough time to investigate and prepare for trial.
The filing reportedly points to two incidents that were added or revived in the expanded case: a 2022 killing in Chicago and a 2019 attempted murder outside an Atlanta restaurant.
According to the defense, prosecutors had information about the Atlanta incident for months but did not include it in previous indictments.
Durk’s lawyers say properly investigating the new allegations would require extensive work across several states and could further delay the proceedings.
The defense is also raising constitutional concerns over Durk’s continued detention. His attorneys argue that he has spent more than 21 months in custody while facing delays they claim were not caused by him.
They contend that adding major charges shortly before trial could violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
Durk’s legal team is asking the court to move forward with the August trial on the original charges while handling the newly added allegations separately. If the judge refuses to sever the charges, the defense argues dismissal should be considered.